Pentax Film Project

James, well, yes, I did quote you out of context, and I apologize -- but I think I confirmed the point you were making. I've already added the Z system to my camera collection, so my recent "money" hasn't been going to Pentax. Further you wrote you are considering Sony, and if you do, your money won't go there either. We are clearly not alone in these actions. That's a problem Pentax faces.

Believe me, I fully understand the advantages of digital over film. I worked for ILFORD for 30 years and watched the progression to digital. I still have a Canon F1 with six lenses all in good condition so I probably wouldn't buy a Pentax film camera either.

Yet, if Pentax can manage the R&D necessary to build a couple film cameras, I think it an interesting area to investigate. Clearly, they must not break the bank on the project as you alluded to. But it may turn into an additional source of revenue which could help maintain the GR, DSLR, and SLR lines ongoing.

Pentax cannot survive doing nothing.

James O'Neill wrote:

RBIV wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

If no one else will say it

To me it's the stupidest idea I've ever seen with a Pentax name on it.

But my next camera body will probably be a Sony.

And there is the reality of what Pentax is up against.

You've edited out the key part of what I said. Going down this path means Ricoh can have a market which is worth diddly squat, but watch all their FF owners jump ship.

So, they are transitioning to a "niche" manufacturer and will continue to offer some DSLR bodies and lenses as long as they can make money.

Film offers another (niche) avenue.

I saw someone say on another forum something to the effect of "yeah hipsters are buying old cars, old cameras and other quasi obsolete stuff, but do they want to buy new lenses, new camera bodies ?"

If you can sell them $500 camera and a couple of $500-$1500 lenses fantastic. If they say "yeah but a DFA* 50 is all wrong, I'll go and a find a F-50, or A-50 or even takumar M42 50" the money per user is peanuts. And if they are buying film era lenses and using film emulsions which were last improved about 20 years ago, why would they want a body.

I'm surprised at how many people, not all of them young, do shoot B/W film, process it and scan it and then go onto to improve via "post processing." Are the results better than digital conversion or mono camera? Who knows, it's subjective.

Well, no it isn't subjective. You can put the film result to digital result beside the pure digital result and compare. You can look at the costs and compare, you can do an environmental impact assessment and compare. Ultimately there will be less information in a scanned film image than a digitally originated one with the same number of pixels (digitize the image the lens formed of the scene, or digitize an image formed by projecting an image from the film record, the image the lens formed).

Since I did the side-by-side comparison of what film and early digital cameras did with the same lenses 15+ years ago film emulsions have been frozen, but digital sensors have got better. People might love being retro, they might love what I used to love about seeing an image appear in a developing tray, all the tactile things working with film. But it's like loving cassette tape, it doesn't sound better (vinyl, arguably does), it doesn't work as well (have to wind the tape to the right place)

These people are enjoying the process. Some even brag that they have darkrooms. And there seems to be a fair minority interested in it.

I've never got rid of my darkroom stuff. I loved the process. But it belongs to the past. I don't know how many people are interested, but there are ten MZ-S bodies on ebay now between £200 and £350. That's the best film camera Pentax ever made for about the same as used K3 mk 1. Want something more mechanical ? An LX goes for the same price. It doesn't seem that are hoards of people driving the prices up.

All this leads to a low risk bet for Pentax. If the project is successful, it may help keep the DSLR division alive. A few dollars earned in three or four different areas can help the whole endure.

Or it's another way for the imaging division to lose money, a way to spend R&D budget on selling a few hundred film bodies without lens revenue to go with them.

We'll see. But Pentax has already lost you. And me as well to some extent. And many others. So, they need to do something.

No, you misquoted me. I hoped we would have seen a K1-iii by now. I can wait a little longer because I'd rather use an OVF, and have Pentax ergonomics. I don't mind AF that is a little bit behind the alternatives, but the K1's AF wasn't great in 2016, and going into 2023 it's miles behind the alternatives and requires me to be manually select a focus point a massive amount of the time: the mental capacity that should be going on timing and framing the shot is going on AF management. Sony (et al) would go to the right place by itself. AIUI the K3-iii is a lot better at subject acquisition, the K3-iii was finished long before it shipped and all that has come out of Ricoh since is the KF. No wonder so many have given up on them.